Rules

Reddit has a spam filter. If you do not see your post within a few moments, please contact the mods.

Please post any Craigslist/for-sale items to the weekly for sale thread. A new thread is created every Friday.

Inflammatory, racist, and/or overly offensive content will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Repeated offenses may result in a ban. If you feel your post was removed in error, please feel free to contact the moderators.

Do not post personal information.

All users claiming to be a local celebrity or other specific person will be required to provide verification. This is to ensure no one claiming to be someone is falsely representing that person.

You know, I think cuccinellis whole deal behind the sodomy law was a loophole to persecute homosexuals, since technically when they do have sex it is sodomy. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't rule it out either

This is absolutely it. The laws have been on the books forever, but they are no longer enforceable. Both the fight to remove them and the fight to keep them are based on principle- being either for or against gay rights.

Cooch fought to keep them on the books as a purely symbolic stance against homosexuality. (and this isn't some bias interpretation of what went on, this is literally what the fight is about)

No offense, but I think you're wrong. He could have limited it to just homosexuals if he had wanted that. Or to everybody who is unmarried. But nah -- he went for the whole enchilada.

I think as part of his gubernatorial campaign, he should be compelled to answer whether he has ever given or received any of this treatment. If he hasn't, he's the most boring man who has ever lived, and if he has, he's a hypocrite.

Don't they have to file on behalf of a specific couple for this suit to go anywhere? I am confused by this press release. Also half of this thread is an argument about taxes. I also find that confusing.

I don't think the government should be dealing with voluntary contracts between individuals. Why must there be this third party meddling in the affairs of people?

I hope you all realize that government marriage contracts/licenses were originally conceived simply to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. Now we are applauding the government for allowing gays to marry? The government was the one restricting and regulating marriage to begin with!

I am not talking about ancient rome. I am talking about the United States. Government marriage contracts in the US were established to prevent interracial marriage. It was simply a gross racist act against people's own interests. This is not a debatable point. It is verifiable historical fact.

I don't think the government should be dealing with voluntary contracts between individuals.

Sure, that's one aspect of marriage, but there are many other too. Unfortunately, the terminology debate (civil unions vs. marriage) ended long ago, and we're stuck with this ugly confusing word marriage, which lumps together civil contracts and religious aspects.

If I had my druthers, the government would permit civil unions for both straights and gays, and wouldn't give anybody a marriage license. Wanna get married? Go see a priest and ask him what he thinks. It's a religious question who should be "bonded together in love and god" for all eternity, and none of the state's business (including for straights).

So it is your opinion that it is impossible to have society without a centralized organization with a monopoly on force? You are suggesting that human beings are incapable of operating without being robbed on a daily basis by strangers? This is nonsense, and it is obvious that you have never been exposed to these ideas, which is why you so carelessly reject them.

I am not advocating a system of total chaos or something. I want all the so-called "services" the state provides to be dealt with by market competition and voluntary association. I also think that property rights should exist, and property owners should choose what kind of defense they want. Currently the government claims ownership of all land, all income, and all other material property. They just choose to let you use or keep a portion of it, as determined by them.

You are suggesting that human beings are incapable of operating without being robbed on a daily basis by strangers?

You're completely mischaracterizing what he said. For as unhappy as many of us might be with what government does, saying that we're incapable of something, or that we're being robbed on a daily basis by strangers is just emotional propaganda.

Currently the government claims ownership of all land, all income, and all other material property.

In China maybe. There is a fairly robust system of private property in the US. What basis do yo have for claiming that the government owns all of these things?

How is a system of taxation the same thing as the government owning the underlying asset? It seems you're saying that if the government taxes your house, it owns your house.

Yes, they have a monopoly on force, and if you don't pay your taxes (after many steps, multiple years, and other financial penalties) eventually a cop with a gun will show up at your door to take you to jail. That's the law, and we've consented via democracy as a group to put penalties on non-compliance. Laws can prohibit action (don't murder) or they can compel action. But not universally -- it's bounded by the constitution.

All of this is fundamentally different than "robbery by strangers" as you put it, because you don't share a constitution with strange robbers, you can't participate in the process of how robbers are put into power, and your recourse after something you don't like happens is completely different. So government and getting robbed by strangers are exactly alike, except for everything.

It seems you're saying that if the government taxes your house, it owns your house.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you do not pay property taxes (rent) to the government owners, they will evict you.. and they will not hesitate to kill you if you resist when they bust down your door. This is the reality. I won't even get into the thousands of regulations they impose upon these supposed "property owners".

That's the law, and we've consented via democracy as a group to put penalties on non-compliance.

No, "we" didn't consent to anything. I certainly never signed the Constitution or any such contract with any organization whatsoever. It was written by a small group of people 200+ years ago. They are all dead, and their Constitution died with them. This type of collectivism has no place in a free society.

All of this is fundamentally different than "robbery by strangers"

The government is full of individuals you don't know, and have never met, and they rob from you via taxation... ergo it is robbery by strangers.

you can't participate in the process of how robbers are put into power, and your recourse after something you don't like happens is completely different.

So robbery is ok if you get to vote on who robs you? That is rather disgusting. That is like saying that rape is ok, as long as the woman gets to choose who rapes her. Despicable. Why can't she vote to be not raped? Why is rape the default position?

That is exactly what I am saying. If you do not pay property taxes (rent) to the government owners, they will evict you.. and they will not hesitate to kill you if you resist when they bust down your door. This is the reality.

Your argument still doesn't make sense. You've established that they can apply force. That simply isn't the same thing as ownership. If anything, you should be arguing that they own your body, not your house, because they apply force to you, not your house.

So robbery is ok if you get to vote on who robs you?

You're justifying your own argument by referring back to your own argument. I'm saying it's not robbery in the first place, so this entire sentence is ham-handed manipulation of what I'm saying. A straw man, if you will.

That is like saying that rape is ok, as long as the woman gets to choose who rapes her. Despicable.

Yup, definitely a strawman. And here's the bullshit where you knock down your hastily constructed strawman. Good thing it was you that made that dumb argument and not me! Wouldn't want that egg on my face!

People cannot be trusted. It's easier to keep a system in balance when you have structure, authority, and hierarchy.

So... people can't be trusted, so we need a system where a small group of people get to rule all the other people according to their whim... Can you see the non-logic of this?

If people can't be trusted, than neither can a government full of people.

purely free market would not stay in balance for long.

What do you mean by "in balance"? And what is your proof that the market can not work effectively? And what is the alternative that will?

Save your emotionally-charged rhetoric for Facebook, it isn't going to convince anyone who has a modicum of critical thinking skills.

I do not use Facebook.

Go ahead and dismiss the ideas and shoot the messenger. Whenever I bring up the violence inherent in the state, I always get the same reactionary deflective responses. I wish someone would actually try to debate what I am saying instead of just dismissing me as being "too emotional" or something. Lame. Lame. Lame.

If everyone else is saying it, might the problem not be you? Appeals to emotion and hyperbolic tirades against government don't make you sound like a rational person with a well-constructed argument no matter what you're trying to convey.

I get it, you're a libertarian and everyone else is a total moron. Bravo.

Argumentum ad Populum. I care not what some other people think. There are plenty of people that would agree with me as well. The point is not how many people think I am right, but whether they can actually logically defend their opposition to what I am saying. So far I have seen almost nothing in the way of actual rebuttal.

I get it, you're a libertarian and everyone else is a total moron. Bravo.

I am a Voluntaryist / Agorist, and I don't think you are a moron. I think you have been duped by psychopaths that want to control your life, but I too was a statist at one point. A year ago I might have scoffed at these ideas or argued the same way as you. But I evolved and realized that humans need not be ruled. I can understand your reluctance to see my points, but in the end, I am only pointing out the bare reality of the current world we live in.

As long as we're gettin' all Latin up in this motherfucker, you just committed the fallacy of burden of proof. You asserted in the previous post that since people can't be trusted, neither can a government of people. When the other guy called you out about that, you shifted the burden of proof to him (and others) saying that they can't logically defend their opposition to what you're saying.

There's no burden for others to coherently oppose what you're saying. The burden of proof lies with you to substantiate what you're saying first.

I wasn't making an argument. I was saying that if you always get the same reaction from the people you're trying to argue with, you should probably re-evaluate your approach. Isn't it a characteristic of insanity to keep on doing the same thing expecting a different result each time?

Tone it down a little. You can make your point a lot more effectively if you ease back the throttle and focus a bit more on the substance of your argument and less on making sure the audience hears how horribly they've been mislead and how grave the situation is.

You come off sounding like a college freshman who just took a few courses on philosophy and the professors totally opened up your eyes.

I am not talking about minarchism or constitutional limited government either. I am talking about your first statement also, " I dont think the government should be dealing with voluntary contracts between individuals."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zY3omeDFtA

You're completely right, but you're not going to win any arguments on /r/rva or in any other predominantly liberal subreddit. Sucks, but most downtown folks would rather vote McAuliffe because he "supports" gay marriage and isn't Cuccinelli than support a candidate like Sarvis who is actually willing to push for marriage equality and the end of drug prohibition. Give it a few years and hopefully people will start coming around.